Posts made by Zhukov44

Well, definitely take France with at least 1 inf.

Whether or not to go heavy into Western depends on what Germany has to counterattack with.  It’s a very complicated question, but ultimately it comes down to this–if Germany can easily trounce any army you land there with enough force that he kills all your stuff and you can’t counterattack, then don’t land there.  But if you can hold it, or at least make Germany pay dearly to retake it (and set-up another counter of your own), then its often a good move to land in force, since the resulting battles will weaken Germany.

We are drifting way off topic here, but I have another KJF related problem.  So lets say I built India and decided to combine the UK fleet at SZ 30….  I tried this the other day…and was surprised when my opponent brought 4 fighters there by moving the 2nd carrier to SZ 38.  In all liklihood the Japs will then destroy the UK fleet (unless u land the India fighter there, but that would mean omitting the Jap tranny at 59 and thus forsaking India or Bury!)

So what do you do to prevent this?  Is this an acceptable sacrifice since it brings the Jap fleet so far off course?

I’m a little fuzzy on the rules on a related question…if you attacked New Guinea with the Aussie tranny…would this block the carrier (and hence the 2 extra figs) or can the Japs snipe the fighter and then friendly move the carrier to 38?

I don’t really see building Italian navy as a viable strategy….unless USA is 100% Pacific.  Bombers and fighters bought by the Allies are too cost effective–Italy doesn’t have the IPCS to outspend either Ally, much less both.

The only way I can see is a Romania factory and Germany buys like 1-2 carriers, then flys planes down onto them.  Doesn’t seem worth it to me…unless UK is basically all alone and is trying to fight in Africa and Scandinavia at the same time.

Squire,

Do you take Norway immediately with UK, or would you try for a USA factory there?

Agree with your contention UK’s priority (besides India) should be propping up Moscow as long as possible rather than taking Africa.  USA/UK can always go after Africa in force starting Turn 3.

Well if there is any real opportunity to wear Germany down by landing in Northwestern then yeah jump on it…but me I’ve got so many figs and armor and artillery (not to mention inf) adjacent to there that I can drub any force landing there…the only thing good for the Allies is I need to take NW Europe for the NO so the Allies can counter right back.

But really the safer strategy is go heavy on Baltic/Poland with all 3 allies…but as you remark if Germany has the France factory they may have too many infs by the time the Allies finally take Eastern Europe…by that time Japan is knocking on the door and none of the Allies can take on the massive inf stack.

The only way to stop this IMO is deny Germany and Italy their NOs so they don’t have the cash to build up the raw numbers and have trouble defending France, much less retaking Leningrad or Stalingrad.

The France factory is a nice strategy but it’s not invincible IMO–it’s vulnerable to SBRs and if you can keep Axis cash poor by winning the battles for Africa and Leningrad early then it can backfire for Axis.

4 inf 3 art or 5 inf 1 art 1 tnk are always be better than 8 inf R1.

Norway is huge for Russia if it works, but there’s a big element of risk there (unacceptably high risk imo).  If you are going to do it, it has to be with the full 3 inf 1 art 1 tnk 1 fig.  Your opening (if I understand it correctly) leaves you vulnerable to a massive German countterattack on West Russia, not to mention a potential attack on Cauc.  But I’d be more worried about West Russia.

Well, I stack the hell out of France, and I imagine a lot of others do to.  So basically the ways to come at my Germany is via Baltic/States/Poland, or Bulgaria/Balkans, or Northwestern Europe if the Allies have alot of troops ready for a series of landings.  Of these options, Poland is obviously the most efficient…it’s just kind of ahistorical.

I guess what I would like to see in the next version is France/Northwestern Europe divided into 3 zones for more fluidity there…and Italy divided into two northern and southern zones so its harder for Germany to help stack it.  If Italy is 2 zones, then it becomes more logical that the Allies would attack there first.  This would draw away German reserves, and hence open up the opportunity to land in France.

Meanwhile, forbid the Allies from landing in Arch/Leningrad, and make it much harder for the Allies to clear the Baltic and eventually land there.  Finally I think it would be cool if Balkans was divided into Greece and Yugo for more action in that theatre.

I like this idea (closing 16 and 5).  While we are at it, why not shut down the Arch/Karelia SZ as well?

Func has it right, that C-Sub paper is super old and makes alot of bad assumptions….it needs an edit.  Obviously if Japan drops absolutely everything to deal with India than the Russians should help out.  In any case, if the Japs put everything into a J3 attack and lose some planes to the aa then sometimes the Russians can simply liberate it and UK can build there on the same turn.

I’m not really big on India for the reasons outlined above–it ties down valuable hardware in an area of secondary strategic value, and if Japan plays it right UK is forced into a defensive posture there.  Still, it is fun to play and every good A&A player should give it a try–just preferably not against your toughest adversary.

These days I hardly buy any UK factories unless its late game and UK has the cash to spare…but if you are going to go with a factory UK1 then India is probably the most interesting option.

@Frontovik:

@Uncle_Joe:

I’m not really sure its ever a good idea to let the Brit BB live on turn 1. It probably the only time you’ll be able to catch it alone. Killing the TR with it is just icing on the cake. It will require at least one of your planes however (and the 2 subs). But I’d rather leave the DD/TR alone than the BB/TR. 27 IPCs is too tasty to leave floating around. :)

what bout seazone 12?
if you don’t kill it, they’ll kill italy fleet

Without the Egypt bid….I feel ok skipping 12.  But with the bid I can’t be confident I will knock out the Brit fighter…hence attacking 12 is necessary.  Bummer…but one of the ways the bid changes up the game.

I have revised my opinion a bit on balance….I think the Allied bid is now about 6.  One unit each to Egypt and Karelia dramatically changes the game dynamics–if the Germans can’t take Egpyt and can’t take Karelia, then there are all kinds of ways the Allies can go on the offensive early.

Without a bid, the advantage is solidly Axis.

@uffishbongo:

Zhukov: At the risk of going off topic into a full discussion of G1 purchases (hey, the Revised boards are slow enough we should probably take any activity we can get, right?): I think one reason art are less popular on G1, besides that most people undervalue art anyway, is that you don’t need them for a while.  During the trading phase where you swap border territories with Russia, you have enough air power to just use inf and planes for the trading.  Art really only come into play when you want to push your stack up, or prevent them from pushing theirs, so you can probably afford to buy it turn 2 or 3.  Tank purchases on G1 immediately project power into the hot zones of Karelia and Ukraine.  For example, you can deter a Russian stack advance to Ukraine if that was a danger.  Or, if you stacked Karelia on G1, your tanks can help hold the line on G2 until your G1 inf purchase arrives on G3.  In the longer term, it’s good to have a decent number of tanks around, either to help defend WE as Darth recommends, or (after you abandon WE) to keep in EE where they can pressure Russia while simultaneously keeping WE deadzoned.  I do like to have some art in my German stack as well, but often get them G2 instead of G1.  Sometimes I go with 12 inf 1 art on G1 if I feel like playing a slower game.

Hmm good explanation.  Tis true, I do get 12 inf 1 art fairly often and when I do I’m always thinking about another inf/art/arm purchase on G2 that will even out my ratios….so in the same vein 10 inf 2 arm is certainly reasonable if I get some Rt G2.  I can agree that in most cases against expert oppos Germany is well served by concentrating on inf the first 2 rounds…BUT there are exceptional cases, like say Russia gets diced, or Allies go full-bore KJF, where it could be a good idea to be more agressive, and in those cases I would want some rt on G1.  I guess where I’m coming from is the perception that Germany starts with plenty of inf already for trading purposes…but if it comes to an early fight, I would like to have some Rt in the mix.  So in that vein…if you need the 2 armor right away why not get 6 inf 3 rt 2 arm and then even it out with a big inf purchase on G2?

Neat summary.

I guess it makes sense to not buy artillery in conjunction with the lurch since for the most part you are adopting a defensive posture and are looking to capture Cauc without a fight–at that point you can buy art at Cauc.  Still, I’d buy a few artillery early on–if for no other reason than to up your attacking punch and get some more value out of your inf .  I don’t understand why 10 inf 2 arm is so popular even though Germany usually only has 1 art in Europe after G1—yet there are plenty players who are much better than me who use it so perhaps I’m overestimating the utility of rt.

I notice from skimming some of the PBEM games that there are different approaches to artillery–10 inf 2 arm seems to be a popular buy as does 8 inf 4 art.

I’ve never faced this strategy as a full-blown offensive…but assuming the Allies are going with a KGF strategy, my instinct is just build a bunch of inf in Western and keep moving infantry into Eastern Canada (ie for the Atlantic shuck) while building a healthy amount of tanks.  At the same time fight back on the mainland with the Russians as much as possible.  I would think you would be able to hold off the Japs and still shuck 4 inf or more land units to Africa or Europe every turn.

There’s just not a whole lot of IPCs in Alaska and Western Canada–as long as you can deadzone Western Canada and protect WUSA Allies should be ok.

The fighter to Bury is a nice option–this makes it hard for Japan to protect new transports.

When I go anti-Japan with UK (which is often these days) I typically spread the UK fleet out, so that Japan has a hard time hitting everything it needs to and hitting Pearl or Bury with sufficient force, and go for the sub with the fighter.  I’m still on the fence whether this is stronger than just hitting Borneo with the fighter keeping the carrier there.

As for Japan, I used to hit Bury instead of Pearl and had tons of success with it, but it is risky when a skilled USA comes for you (especially if there are some UK units left to back USA up) as Japan has a tough time going toe to toe.  This kind of game is hard for Axis to win in the long game–Germany needs to prevail against Russia but will have to fight both UK and Russia.  Once the Allies get Africa economics swing back in the Allies favor, as Japan won’t be able to soak IPCS from the UK with the USA on their back.

I think the Bury attack has its best effect in conjunction with certain German deployments–where Axis want the USA to come Pacific and ignore the Atlantic.  The plan (presumably taking Moscow) just needs to work because if USA comes for Japan they have a 34 ipc head start.

Syria/Iraq/Persia should be worth alot of IPCs, as it was considered very valuable by British High Command and worth defending.

Split North Africa into more territories to make more of a war there (maybe Morroco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt–-ie make it at least 4, possibly 5 territories instead of the 3 in Revised).

The rest of Africa shouldn’t be worth much.

Also, split the Balkans up to make that a more tempting place for the Allies to land (ie Greece and Yugo).

Func I would love to see your Polar Express in action–though I understand it is a situational move.

Lately I’ve been playing Revised on the GTO Facebook version.  No time commitments, and the interface is a piece of cake.  If you’re interested in playing sometime message me and we can set it up.  Same offer goes out to you Uffish.

You mean the tranny is in SZ 36 right?

I wouldn’t buy any new fleet in this situation, but instead try to form 2 strong fleets–-attacking China, Pearl, 36 and sending 1 fig after the SZ 47 tranny.  In that case, the fleet in SZ 59 can be safely ignored, even if the Brit fighter landed there.

This suggests to me that the stronger move is landing the fig on the Pearl fleet, as this helps kill the sub and exposes Japan to some risky dice (though not THAT risky if Japan brings sufficient units).  In that case, perhaps it’s worth skipping Pearl (but maybe not in this particular instance since Borneo was not taken and there is no India factory).  It’s no longer clear to me that the Japs should hit Pearl in every instance–nor does it seem clear cut that the Americans should always go after the Japs if they skip Pearl.

Ok I can pretty much agree with that.

I’m playing a game on Facebook right now…where Japan lost

1. 1 fig to India aa
2. destroyer, sub, and 1 fig in Pearl light attk (all US units destroyed)

Since it’s a non-tourney game, I decided to go after Japan with USA, against my better judgment perhaps.  On USA1, I had the opportunity to destroy a Japanese carrier plus a transport in SZ 60 with a fighter and bomber (which I lost in the fight and after landing in Japan’s next turn).  So now the Japs are down a destroyer, transport, sub, 2 figs, and a carrier, while I lost the Pearl fleet plus my bomber and fighter.

The Japs had bought a factory and two transports, so they still have 2 trannies in sz 61.

What do you think?  Would you go after Japan in this context?

Well I certainly follow and agree with your reasoning, but as a gentle criticism, I wouldn’t recommend (or seem to recommend) a strategy that you would never use yourself :).

But what I’m finding is that when I go KJF in response to a mistake or bad dice on J1, I often find I regret it as it sometimes makes the game harder for the Allies in general.  It always depends on circumstance…but I find that some players actually want you to come for Japan (eg they skip Pearl and hit Bury instead, hoping the USA will go 100% to Pacific and this will give Germany an opening).